430 S.W.3d 555
Tex. App.2014Background
- Saxon was indicted for murder (Count 1) and arson (Count 2), involving Mary Saxon (his mother).
- Trial began October 16, 2012; jury convicted Saxon of both murder and arson and sentenced him to eighty years for each count.
- During jury instruction, the murder count omitted fire/arson language from the indictment, and the arson count omitted the murder language.
- The State did not object to the jury charge, effectively abandoning the omitted language after the jury was impaneled.
- Saxon argues the dual conviction violates the Fifth Amendment double jeopardy by treating death as two offenses; the State argues abandonment prevents double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does dual conviction for murder and arson violate double jeopardy? | Saxon argues death by fire supports two offenses. | State may abandon indictment language; not double jeopardy. | No double jeopardy; convictions upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (U.S. 1977) (double jeopardy protection against multiple punishments)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (two offenses require proof of different elements)
- Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (double jeopardy even with differing elements under Blockburger)
- Eastep v. State, 941 S.W.2d 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (state may abandon indictment allegations by omission)
- In re Preston, 833 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (abandoning counts after jury impaneled bars later litigation)
- Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (conjunctive pleading of multiple means permitted; prove one)
- Tooke v. State, 642 S.W.2d 514 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1982) (permissible to allege conjunctively and prove one means)